WASHINGTON — Barbara, a Cuban emigre 30 weeks into a high-risk pregnancy, is dealing with the additional stress of not knowing for sure that her baby girl will be an American citizen.
“It scares me a lot that my baby will be born without citizenship because she would not be a citizen of this country. Claiming Cuban citizenship is not an option because we are fleeing from that country,” she said. “I really don’t know what kind of future my baby would face. I am terrified that my baby will be born without citizenship. It would be like she would be stateless. It’s terrible.”
The 35-year-old woman lives in Kentucky, which is not among the 22 states that sued to challenge President Donald Trump’s executive order that would deny citizenship to children who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
Lower courts have so far blocked the executive order from taking effect anywhere in the United States. In arguments Thursday, the Supreme Court weighs the Trump administration’s request to narrow those court orders so that they cover only the parties that sued in federal court. Affected children born in Kentucky would not be citizens, if the court sides with the administration.
The woman agreed to an interview with The Associated Press on condition that her last name not be used and her face not be shown on camera.
Barbara has joined the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, one of the groups that sued over birthright citizenship. Members of the group likely would be protected under court orders.
She was a lawyer in Cuba before fleeing religious persecution in 2022 with her husband, a daughter, now 4, and her parents, Barbara said. They are seeking political asylum in the United States.
“I would not want my daughter to grow up in a society that excludes her. As a citizen, she will have a lot of rights. I don’t know exactly how many places she would not be able to access if she were not a citizen,” Barbara said.
A possible outcome of the court case is babies born to immigrant mothers at the same time in the same American hospital would have different status. One might be a U.S. citizen; the other might not.
Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda. Several of those relate to immigration. The justices are considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans.
The administration also remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
If the court agrees to limit the ability of judges to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the restrictions would be allowed to take effect for now in at least 27 states.
The current fight is over what rules will apply while the lawsuits proceed through the courts. But even though the high court is not expected to issue a final decision about birthright citizenship, a ruling for the administration could lead to a confusing, if temporary, patchwork of rules that might differ based on what state children are born in or whether they are members of immigrants rights groups that sued.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the Citizenship Clause reads.
Since at least 1898 and the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the provision has been widely interpreted to make citizens of everyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; and, until a federal law changed things in 1924, sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to children if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories include people who are in the country illegally or temporarily because, the administration contends, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
In the Supreme Court case, the administration spends little time defending Trump’s executive order, focusing instead on what it calls “an epidemic” of nationwide, or universal, injunctions.
“The need for this Court’s intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing. Judges have issued 39 such orders against the administration so far, the Justice Department said.
At least two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have said they believe individual judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Several others have suggested the injunctions raise questions the court might someday answer.
But New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, leading one of the lawsuits, said this is not the right case to deal with the issue because Trump is offering a “warped reading” of the 14th Amendment that is at odds with Supreme Court precedent. “I do think this is a very imperfect vehicle to have to raise the question about nationwide injunctions … because it’s very clear that the 14th Amendment applies uniformly across states if you’re born here,” Platkin said.
___
Associated Press writer Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, contributed to this report.
